Re: FW: Re: help: shlibs problem
On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 04:54:26PM +0100, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> On Sunday 24 December 2000 16:36, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 09:29:00AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > However, if objdump lists a library that ldd can't find the path for, and
> > > the library is mentioned in debian/shlibs.local, isn't it reasonable for
> > > dpkg-shlibdeps to assume that this local library is the one it's looking
> > > for? After all, passing LD_LIBRARY_PATH to ldd doesn't help the fact that
> > > we still have to go to debian/shlibs.local to find the binary package
> > > name. Why not suppress the warning, since it's pretty much meaningless
> > > in this case?
> > >
> > > Further, the man page says that the debian/shlibs.local file has higher
> > > precedence than shlibs listings for installed packages. So even if ldd
> > > /does/ find a library with the same soname belonging to an installed
> > > package, it should still use the dependency name from shlibs.local,
> > > correct?
> >
> > IIRC, shlibs.local isn't needed in this case, because we use
> > ldd/objdump. IOW, it will simply know that the library is contained in
> > the package, and ignore the self-dep. To be honest, I think shlibs.local
> > isn't need at all now, because dpkg-shlibdeps even checks
> > debian/*/DEBIAN/shlibs aswell.
>
> Maybe dpkg-shlibdeps checks 'debian/*/DEBIAN/shlibs' but still not determined
> a shared library provided by given package (or the warning appears by mistake
> only). Only passing LD_LIBRARY_PATH with a proper path ('debian/*/usr/lib')
> to dh_shlibdeps can suppress this warning at this moment.
I know that, and there's good reason for forcing the packager to do
this, rather than taking guesses.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: